NFHS: Where do we put the ball?

[merlin]

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by merlin

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

Illegal men? What, no visas?

[merlin]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Illegal men? What, no visas?

Yeah, that was funny! I think my mind was fried when I wrote that. Long day at work and this play to think about was too much.
I should have said ineligibles downfield.

[MI Official]

hmmmm. I can't find anything that says recovery AFTER touching by K behind the neutral zone in my case book. but if I use the logic of 'not advancing a muff' why would we not have K ball 1 and 10 at the spot of recovery since a legal kick has occured? The only snag I see in explaining is the pass was incomplete. had it been complet or he ran, would we not by in the right to rule the play was essentially over when K secured possession? just my opinion....

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by MI Official

but if I use the logic of 'not advancing a muff' why would we not have K ball 1 and 10 at the spot of recovery since a legal kick has occured?

There is no rule that says "you cannot advance a muff." The rule is you cannot advance a kick beyond the neutral zone.

However, BEHIND the NZ, anyone can advance the ball. 6-2-3

[whitehat]

I'm givng DJ_NV the trophy for coming up with what may just be the most mysterious play situation ever...anybody want to email a NF interpretor for a final ruling?

Just when I thought after 25 years of officiating and rules study I had it all figured out...(or much of it anyway between bouts of random forgetfullness and brain locks...)

[DJ_NV]

I'll certainly pass on the credit...this was the brainchild of one of our fellow members in my association. He was going to email it to the Fed as well. I will post here if he receives a response.

Thanks again to all for sparing a bit of their time and brainpower. I was hoping that someone might have been able to produce a casebook situation that I missed, but I just don't think it's there.

[CWIG]

I believe Merlin has a vaild point. There would almost certainly have to be ineligibles downfield at that point. If so, and since poessession never changed (no 'clean hands' to think about), the foul would be enforced from the previous spot. Replay of 4th down.

[Bullycon]

Originally Posted by CWIG

I believe Merlin has a vaild point. There would almost certainly have to be ineligibles downfield at that point. If so, and since poessession never changed (no 'clean hands' to think about), the foul would be enforced from the previous spot. Replay of 4th down.

A new series is still awarded to K because they are in possession at the end of a down in which R was the first to touch a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone. (5-1-3f, 5-2-2, 5-2-5f)

It will be 1st and 10 for K from K's 35 following penalty enforcement.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by merlin

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

We don't even know that the pass went beyond the neutral zone.